There was a time when the idea of “civil unions” would have been deemed preposterous. Even The Denver Post, which is hardly known for espousing conservatism, would have decried such a notion a generation ago. Little did anyone think that Democratic lawmakers would ignore the constitutional amendment which voters passed in 2006 and ram a bill through the legislature, which contravenes the will of the Colorado electorate.

It is hardly any wonder that SB 11 is an outrage to both Catholics and evangelicals, who rightly contend that the civil unions bill inveighs against religious freedom. As Rep. Bob Gardner observes, “It infringes the free exercise of religion and moral conscience.” Another opponent of the bill, Rep. Lori Saine, said, “What this bill is about, really, is the Bible. Is it right or wrong?” Democrats rejected Gardner’s introduction of a religious exemption categorically.

The Book of Proverbs spoke well of this ungodly generation: “They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.”

Brian Stuckey, Denver

This letter was published in the March 17 edition.

As a former Catholic, I read with great interest Archbishop Samuel Aquila’s statement reacting to the General Assembly’s landmark passage of Senate Bill 11, which authorizes civil unions in Colorado. The Catholic Church’s wholesale opposition to same-sex civil unions disregards the civil rights of our gay family members and friends, who rightfully seek equality under the law. Archbishop Aquila, however, exacerbates the Catholic Church’s oppressive stance against the LGBT community by cloaking its agenda in the cloth of “religious liberty.” Archbishop Aquila believes that the General Assembly should have provided a means, in the form of a religious exemption, by which the Catholic Church could have maintained its bigotry toward gays and lesbians. Our General Assembly recognized and rejected this disingenuous position. The authorization of civil unions instills a great deal of pride and hope; it is indeed a great day for the state of Colorado.

Matthew Finnigan, Superior

This letter was published in the March 17 edition.

With the blessing of The Denver Post and the LGBT community, the Democrats have only scratched the surface with civil unions and now their push for gay marriage. If they really desire an egalitarian society, they need to blow the door wide open. Start by legalizing prostitution. Prostitutes should have the right to ply their trade just as a plumber does. Legalize gambling statewide. Allow the sale of alcohol around the clock. Allow slot machines in every bar. These are just a few things that come to mind. I am sure there are many others. And just think of all the new taxes that the Democrats would have at their disposal.

David Sullivan, Castle Rock

This letter was published in the March 17 edition.

Thank you, Colorado, for civil unions. Would anyone convinced that civil unions will threaten traditional marriage care to bet that the divorce rate will shoot up and the number of marriage licenses issued will plummet over the coming year? I thought not. I also wager it will remain perfectly legal to yell “Homosexuals are going to hell!” in the privacy of your own home, club or church.

Rick Opler, Parker

This letter was published in the March 17 edition.

The tide is going out rapidly and for many of us there is a feeling of helplessness to stem the alteration of a basic standard which colors our lives. The legislative momentum toward and The Denver Post’s support of gay “marriage” couched in civil rights terminology suggests an inevitability. After all, are not “all men (and women) created equal”? No one argues with these ideals that must be guaranteed with respect to human rights and opportunities. But for many, standards and boundaries, distinctions and separations, which speak to the fabric of our humanity, remain in place.

For many of us, marriage is a term restricted to, what we believe to be, the natural order of the species. If two same-sex people wish to join together in civil union, so be it, and they clearly should have every benefit given to heterosexual married couples. But I will reserve the term “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman; and I will maintain and ask that it be taught and preserved that there is a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships and that this distinction should not be blurred.

Neiel Baronberg, Denver

This letter was published in the March 17 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

“I know I can’t tell you what it’s like to be gay. But I can tell you what it’s not. It’s not hiding behind words, Mama. Like family and decency and Christianity.” ― Armistead Maupin

#2 Comment By peterpi On March 16, 2013 @ 5:57 pm

Mr. Stuckey, the moment civil unions licenses start being issued, you, your family members, your religious leader, your congregation, your religious leader’s religious leader, “his” religious leader can all don appropriate ofiicial garb, march down to the Denver City and County Building or the Boulder County courthouse, or the GLBTCCC headquarters, or the Denver Post offices, and show hell and damnation, condemnation, telling us sinners (so unlike yourselves) that we are all doomed! Doomed!
Ditto David Sullivan.
For people who just had their freedom of speech and religion trampled into extinguishment, it’s remarkable how vibrant and visible and ongoing their denied free speech rights and religious rights/rites are.
Mr. Baronberg. SB 11 IS civil unions. Do you therefore reluctantly support it?

#3 Comment By primafacie On March 16, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

” Start by legalizing prostitution. Prostitutes should have the right to ply their trade just as a plumber does.”

Not sure I’m for that, Mr. Sullivan, but I can’t argue against the liberty to do so.

“Legalize gambling statewide.”

Hear, hear!

“Allow the sale of alcohol around the clock.”

Natch!

“Allow slot machines in every bar.”

Why not?

“And just think of all the new taxes that the Democrats would have at their disposal.”

Whoa right there, pardner. Who you calling a Democrat?

#4 Comment By peterpi On March 16, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

With his rant about prostitution, gambling, and slot machines, I thought he was arguing against Nevada instead of civil unions.

#5 Comment By Robtf777 On March 16, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

“The Book of Proverbs spoke well of this ungodly generation: “They would
none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof. Therefore shall they
eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own
devices.””
=============
In 1969 or 1970, a book called The Late Great Planet Earth made the best-seller’s list…….and may have ushered in the current…..interest…..some people have in the Tribulation…….that even the Left Behind series of books capitalized upon several years ago.

Of course, not even many “Biblical” and “End Times” “scholars” back in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or even in the 1990s would have envisioned the state of affairs that courses through even our own country these days.

Most people would have thought that, given a choice of “what would come first?,” (1) The Israeli Middle East Peace Treaty or (2) Gay Marriage……most people would have picked #1 even 20 years ago.

The World and our own country are going EXACTLY in the way the Bible foretold it would go……when “evil” becomes “good” and what is “good” becomes “evil”……..in ways that not even Hal Lindsay would have imagined or suggested or wrote some 40 years ago.

But……God is in charge. Not President Obama. God. Not the Supreme Court. God. Not the UN. God. Not any man. God. Not any demon. God. Not even Satan or the devil. God.

And God will win. And everyone who opposes Him will….not.

#6 Comment By peterpi On March 16, 2013 @ 7:58 pm

Yeah. I remember “The Late, Great Planet Earth”. Either that book or some others along the same line made a great big to-do over the number 40, and how in 1988, Israel would have its 40th anniversary, and … nothing happened.
That book or other books along the same line believe the anti-Christ will share certain characteristics of Jesus, such as being a Jewish male, but there’s no anti-Semitism here folks, so move along.
And Wow! The Bible foretold that the State of Colorado would allow same-sex couples to get civil unions, provided they didn’t pack concealed weapons with 20-round magazines into the courthouse? That’s amazing.
Two people being in love with each other and wanting to commit their lives together. Run for your lives, the End Times are Coming!!!
Yes, Robtf God “is” in charge. The real God, who is far greater than you or anyone can imagine.

#7 Comment By Tim Calahan On March 17, 2013 @ 8:50 am

Our society, thankfully, is growing up, and fewer and fewer people such as Robt777 exist in today’s society. There will always be hold outs such as, but that’s okay. Soon, we an largely ignore such individuals and pity them for being stuck in the 19th century. Members of the LGBT community aren’t the evil heathen boogeymen that such individuals have spouted for decades. We are being embraced by and welcomed into main stream society, where we have always been, only silent. Today, most of us see no reason to be closeted. We have pictures of our significant others openly displayed on our work desks, we talk openly of our weekend activities just like anyone else. What I’m trying to get at, robt777, Neiel, David, and others like you, society’s attitudes grow and mature. We’re no longer deemed by the vast majority as being a “detriment” to society. You guys can either embrace the tide shift, live with your narrow minded attitudes, spout your ignorance and fear towards an entire segment of society, along with your silly reasonings, or accept the fact Colorado has grown up. by the way, how many of you are aware straight couples can also opt into the civil unions bill if they decide, for whatever reason, not to engage in a wedding ceremony?

#8 Comment By TomFromTheNews On March 17, 2013 @ 9:47 am

Ah, I love Tales of the City!

#9 Comment By Guest22 On March 17, 2013 @ 11:06 am

Me too!

#10 Comment By JohnBoy On March 17, 2013 @ 11:15 am

Thank you mister Baronberg. You have a great gift in letter writing. I wish I could write as elequently. I read your letter several times, and showed it to my wife also. Your letter was supurb !!!

#11 Comment By rickindouglasco On March 17, 2013 @ 11:41 am

Mr. Baronberg’s attitude is refreshingly mature – having lost the battle he preserves privately distinctions improtant to him. Isn’t this what catholics do with regard to marriages involving divorced persons?
As I have pointed out in 2 letters published by the Post (Rick Opler, Parker), the day to day, civil society consequences of civil unions – or gay marriage for that matter – will be almost nil. Conceptually/philosophically yes, it’s a big change, (and a huge benefit to the minority) but practically the world doesn’t change much. Call a friend in a state that’s had gay marriage or unions for a while and ask.
As for the rabid Christian end-of-timers, what date to I mark on my new Mayan calendar? I am confused, are you anxiously awaiting the rapture at the same time you’re fighting it’s arrival?
What Robert forcefully points out is that the “anti’s” place their religion ahead of the Constitution. So, too, apparently, does the Colorado Republican party. Senator Renfroe’s speech saying “I honestly believe the Constitution is only for religious people” sums up their “religious freedom” argument. Apparently they have drunk their own Koolaid and hastened their own end times at the polls, for which we all can be thankful.
As an aside, did you all see the Pew poll? The found only 3 groups strongly anti gay marriage: Whites over 65, Whites with less than a high school education, and White fundamentalist evangelicals. (53% lay catholics, surprise, approve gay marriage). If you are as old as I am you’ll remember these are the same 3 groups most likely to have a souvenir Lester Maddox ax handle.

#12 Comment By reinhold23 On March 17, 2013 @ 10:42 pm

Montana, that bastion of conservativism and, along with Wyoming, the preserve of the Wild West, has slots in every convenience store. Do you blame liberals for that, David?

#13 Comment By ThePyro On March 18, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

I’m actually all for what Mr. Sullivan is proposing…because what I’ve waited my whole life to see is a drunk homosexual hooker passed out on a slot machine at my favorite bar at 3:37 am. I’d pay two years worth of taxes just to get that off my bucket list.

#14 Comment By meg On March 19, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

Archbishop Aquila has the duty as do all citizens to speak conscionable
in the public square. The Catholic faith carries with it a particular
responsibility to safeguard the rights of all people, particularly those
who do not have a strong voice, children in this case. The introduction of civil unions will result in infringing on the
child’s right to a mother and a father. Other countries further down
this road than the US show the effect on children. After civil unions
were recognized by some European countries, they were soon extended to
any two people, gay or not. This has resulted in an alternative to
marriage with the legal benefits and fewer legal obligations. Before
civil unions, 12% of children were born to unmarried couples today 40%
of children are born to unmarried couples with the average cohabitation
relationship lasting about 5 years. Children have a right to stability
within an intact family. Civil unions have proven to undermine this
right. Civil unions, with it’s weakening effect on marriage (as they are
extended to all combinations of individuals) will result in greater
poverty. Civil unions promote an overall diversion from marriage as a
pillar of society. Traditional marriage is a safeguard against poverty;
civil unions weaken this safeguard. Statistically, civil unions have
the effect of more children being born to non-intact families as a
society, not less. Therefore more children will face a higher risk of
poverty throughout childhood. By age six, 68 percent of children in
non-married households had experienced at least one year of poverty,
compared to 12 percent of children in married households. By age 12, 78
percent of children in non-married households had experienced at least
one year of poverty compared to 18 percent of children in married
households; and by age 17, 81 percent of children in non-married
households had experienced at least one year of poverty compared to 22
percent of children in married households. The study found that
“[c]hildren in nonmarried households who are one year old have exceeded
the risk of poverty that children in married households experience
during their entire 17 years of childhood.”Mark R. Rank and Thomas A.
Hirschl, “The Economic Risk of Childhood in America: Estimating the
Probability of Poverty Across the Formative Years,” Journal of Marriage
and Family 61, No. 4 (November 1999): 1058-1067.